Party Poll

AmenToThat

Earthman wrote:

Of course it's not ok for the state to Murder,I'm surprised that you even implied that from that post.
Uhm,the comment was in refferal to the fact that democratic governments that go to war or who run armies that kill are open to democratic scrutiny and the ultimate sanction being thrown out of office.

Not if this democratic government engages in a cover up or bans journalists from 'hot spots' because it doesnt feel they can offer proper protection to these journalists or uses the media to ensure that 'joe soap' doesnt find out what the government is doing or its real reasons for doing it.

ranDom_tAsk

How come there's no option in the Poll for "None" ?

Sleepy

AmenToThat wrote:

What you fail to say though is that several of the people posting on these threads are comming out with all kinds of abusive statements about people with Republican ideals most of which go unchecked by the moderators and usual ends in the thread going completely off topic.

The difference here is that in the eyes of most people, those that support such "Republican ideals" also either support, or are tolerant of murder, crime, abduction and terrorism.

It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism, the party is too inextricably linked with the IRA for that argument to stand up.

And I must say I think the Republicans are just as responsible for dragging things off topic as anyone else here.

Villain

Sleepy wrote:

It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism, the party is too inextricably linked with the IRA for that argument to stand up.

I couldn't disagree more, you are 100% incorrect on that matter and I am living proof that you are incorrect.

The generalisation you make is just totally ignorant. :mad:

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism

Totally disagree with that. It fits nicely into the way most people here discuss the matter of SF supporters though ie dismiss them as terrorist loving scum.

Sleepy

How is the statement a generalisation? Sinn Fein is the political arm of a terrorist organisation. To believe you only support the political arm is the height of naieveté and ignorance.

mycroft

ranDom_tAsk wrote:

How come there's no option in the Poll for "None" ?

Same reason there isn't one in the electronic voting machines.

Villain

Sleepy wrote:

How is the statement a generalisation? Sinn Fein is the political arm of a terrorist organisation. To believe you only support the political arm is the height of naieveté and ignorance.

Because you are branding thousands of people you don't know as supporters of terrorism, going by what you say the 6,000 people who voted for Joe Reilly support terrorism, also the majority of nationalists support terrorism.

How in god's name can you know that, your posting crap sleepy absolute crap. I have said it here from the day one that I do not support terrorism now please stop posting accusations about me and thousands of others whom you have never met.

gurramok

Sleepy wrote:

It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism, the party is too inextricably linked with the IRA for that argument to stand up.

So there are as of now according to the poll, 24 terrorists with boards.ie accounts, does boards now tolerate terrorism according to your logic by not banning them?

sceptre

gurramok wrote:

So there are as of now according to the poll, 24 terrorists with boards.ie accounts, does boards now tolerate terrorism according to your logic by not banning them?

We don't know who they are:)

Look, seriously, it's an oversimplification to say that you can't be a supporter of SF without also being a supporter of the ri-ra and terrorism. There are people who do. I believe irish1 when he says he does, though he might be the only one here I do believe (and then again he might not be the only one, it doesn't keep me awake at night).

Having said that, I'd say that saying that you can't support SF without also in some way adding effective implicit support for a terrorist organisation is a reasonable statement due to the two being joined at the neck at birth and never having been separated by either organisation. If "It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism" is a short version of that (and I suspect it is, though I'd ask the OP to clarify that) then it's effectively a reasonable comment. Should people choose to interpret the statement in a different way it might be an unreasonable comment (especially if they choose to interpret it as "all SF voters are petrol bombers") but it depends what the poster originally meant. Might have been an idea to ask for clarification there before jumping onto tall horses but I suppose it's easier to argue against the interpretation I've put in parentheses.

A Dub in Glasgo

sceptre wrote:

We don't know who they are:)

Look, seriously, it's an oversimplification to say that you can't be a supporter of SF without also being a supporter of the ri-ra and terrorism. There are people who do. I believe irish1 when he says he does, though he might be the only one here I do believe (and then again he might not be the only one, it doesn't keep me awake at night).

Having said that, I'd say that saying that you can't support SF without also in some way adding effective implicit support for a terrorist organisation is a reasonable statement due to the two being joined at the neck at birth and never having been separated by either organisation. If "It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism" is a short version of that (and I suspect it is, though I'd ask the OP to clarify that) then it's effectively a reasonable comment. Should people choose to interpret the statement in a different way it might be an unreasonable comment (especially if they choose to interpret it as "all SF voters are petrol bombers") but it depends what the poster originally meant. Might have been an idea to ask for clarification there before jumping onto tall horses but I suppose it's easier to argue against the interpretation I've put in parentheses.

All very well jumping through those hoops but consider this.

If the above is reasonable, how do you (and sleepy) view the tacit support and allowing the US the use of our infrastructure for their war in Iraq? Is it reasonable to say that those Irish people who support the troop movements through Iraq also, by definition, support the slaughter of the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

All very well jumping through those hoops but consider this.

If the above is reasonable, how do you (and sleepy) view the tacit support and allowing the US the use of our infrastructure for their war in Iraq? Is it reasonable to say that those Irish people who support the troop movements through Iraq also, by definition, support the slaughter of the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Yes it is (regardless of whether you agree with wars or shenanigans or wet-teeshirt competitions or not, basic logic tells us that A->B where B=C equates to A->C). The question is whether it's slaughter or not but there's an existing thread on Shannon, troop movement and Iraq that you may be best-placed to participate in rather than amazingly turn a poll about voting intentions into an Iraq thread. The logic stands regardless. I'm semi-sure that Sleepy will answer your query in the other thread should you choose to pose it there.

A Dub in Glasgo

sceptre wrote:

Yes it is (regardless of whether you agree with wars or shenanigans or wet-teeshirt competitions or not, basic logic tells us that A->B where B=C equates to A->C). The question is whether it's slaughter or not but there's an existing thread on Shannon, troop movement and Iraq that you may be best-placed to participate in rather than amazingly turn a poll about voting intentions into an Iraq thread. I'm semi-sure that Sleepy will answer your query in the other thread should you choose to pose it there.

Don't need, I wanted to see if the logic is acceptable to other scenerios or if we are restricted to the SF scenerio.

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Don't need, I wanted to see if the logic is acceptable to other scenerios or if we are restricted to the SF scenerio.

The logic always remains the same regardless of whether the initial condition is the same or different (in which case the conclusion will be the same or different, respectively).

A Dub in Glasgo

sceptre wrote:

The logic always remains the same regardless of whether the initial condition is the same or different (in which case the conclusion will be the same or different, respectively).

I am aware that the logic is the same. I was wondering on the acceptability within politics of using the same logic in non-SF discussions.

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I am aware that the logic is the same. I was wondering on the acceptability within politics of using the same logic in non-SF discussions.

If it's got a sound basis and initial starting point I can't easily think of any reason why you might think this would be a problem.

Sleepy

sceptre wrote:

Having said that, I'd say that saying that you can't support SF without also in some way adding effective implicit support for a terrorist organisation is a reasonable statement due to the two being joined at the neck at birth and never having been separated by either organisation. If "It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism" is a short version of that (and I suspect it is, though I'd ask the OP to clarify that) then it's effectively a reasonable comment.

Thanks for so eloquently clarifying my comment.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that voting for Sinn Fein means you are a terrorist. I do believe that by voting for them you are implicitly condoning the IRA's actions. Sinn Fein voters seem to believe that the IRA and Sinn Fein can be easily distinguished as two seperate groups. This, to me at least, is ridiculously credulous and extremely naieve.

With so many of the key players in both wings of the organisation, so many of the key players in Sinn Fein having come from backgrounds where they served time for IRA activity, I don't believe you can seperate the two entities as easily as Messrs Adams and McGuinness would like us to believe. In fact, I believe that anyone that does believe this is, to put it bluntly, a little simple.

Sleepy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is it reasonable to say that those Irish people who support the troop movements through Iraq also, by definition, support the slaughter of the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

It seems quite reasonable. Do you think I'd be for one illegal war yet against another? Personally, I believe that George W. Bush represents the greatest threat to the survival of humanity in the present day.

Villain

Well sleepy if thats what you believe fair enough, but I honestly don't know how you could think

It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism

.

There are many thousands of people north and south who vote for Sinn Fein and I don't believe you are in a position to say that they support terrorism.

I mean one could say that every person that votes for FF supports coruption, but that would be a very general comment that many thousands of people would probably disagree with, including myself.

Sleepy

I'm not so sure I'd agree with that irish1. I personally believe that voting for FF is a tacit acceptance of their corrupt nature. Just as I believe that by voting for Sinn Fein, you are tacitly accepting terrorism, crime and murder.

Though if I'm entirely honest, in the last General Election, whoever the Galway West candidate for Sinn Fein was got a higher preference from me than Frank Fahy did...

Tennis

Shame on the 25 people who chose Sinn Fein! I would vote Labour, then Fine Gael and then the Green Party in that order.

Villain

Sleepy wrote:

Just as I believe that by voting for Sinn Fein, you are tacitly accepting terrorism,

Thats different from saying

It is impossible to be a Sinn Fein supporter and not support terrorism

I'll leave it at that.

ranDom_tAsk

mycroft wrote:

Same reason there isn't one in the electronic voting machines.

Oh ?, and that would be ?

marco murphy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Totally disagree with that. It fits nicely into the way most people here discuss the matter of SF supporters though ie dismiss them as terrorist loving scum.

Exactly,just as you have IRA lovers who hate sinn fein,although few of them.
Iam very sure sinn fein will sail ahead in the next general election and fair play to them.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

There are many thousands of people north and south who vote for Sinn Fein and I don't believe you are in a position to say that they support terrorism.

Welcoming terrorists to their annual conference to cheers and applause isnt support for terrorism?
Well if its not I don't know what is.

It's quite simple, if one doesnt want to tacitly support a party with a blazé cosy acceptance of terrorism, then one doesnt Votáil sinn féin.

The_Conductor

Heard a curious story on Paddies Day about parties canvassing for votes about 10 years ago.....
Apparently Sinn Fein were starting to canvas homes in the Dublin West area and came to the territory of Liam Lawlor- knocking on doors in Neilstown.
At the very first door they knocked on, a hassled woman with 4 screaming kids put her head around the door, looked them in the eye, and said- "So, where's me bag of coal?"
Apparently that was the established currency for first preferences in the area (along with organising a minibus to get people down to the local primary school).

I have to agree with the contention that a vote for FF is a tacit acceptance of their corruption, while a vote for Sinn Fein is a tacit acceptance of their inherrant means of bullying people by any means necessary to achieve their goals. Its very noticeable how quiet Mary Lou is these days.......

AngelofFire

ionapaul wrote:

I'd like to see a PD / FG coalition, but it ain't gonna happen.

Thank Goodness it will never happen either, The Whole of Ireland would be privatised including the River Shannon, and CCTV would be installled in everyones bedrooms.

Time Magazine

Assuming that FG, the second biggest party in the country, would hold the main power in a FG/PD coalition, not much would be privatised.

I find it bemusing that FG are the smallest party in this poll. If only the notion of FFF (Fianna Fáil Farmers) was lost.

I genuinely believe a FG/Labour coalition with the Greens in charge of the Dept of the Enviornment would be of such a huge benefit to the state. You'd have the economic reality and toughness of FG, the socially-admirable Labourites and the Greens who surely know more about Sellafield than the PD's. No dancing with terrorists, accountability, honesty, a socially-minded capitalist society with an acknowledgement to the importance of the environment. God, if only the largest party and the dirty party's voters would open their eyes...

gurramok

Fine Gael in urban areas have a image problem as a pro-farmer party and appeal to the wealthier voter, urban and rural, FG need to open their eyes to this.
The greens used to be good until they went to bed with them and the threat of more taxes to pay for their environment policies does not appeal.
Labour on the other hand need to get off the fence and deal with local issues for a change in working class areas to challenge SF.